User talk:Sad mouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Sad mouse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributer to Australian articles, (The Dreamtime discussion) you may may like to connect with Australian wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard at WP:AWNB.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Thank you for signing up!

A Y Arktos\talk 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Little Sad mouse

Thank you for the correction and Welcome. I hear cheese makes little mouses happy. TalkAbout 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

laughs thank you. Cheese makes me happy :) Sad mouse 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Just realized you are Autralian! :-) Did you hear about this[1]? Well, cheese is still within the law....Happy Holidays!TalkAbout 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


So, you are a scientist. My brother studied genetics and now is into project management. I have a side interest and that is orphan diseases that no one takes too much of an interest here. I am fascinated by neuropath ways (the idea of re-branching), the chemical reactions (with regards to illness) and on occasion find an article and place it into the right spot. I recently saw Ray Kurzweil who is a futurist and the author of The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend Biology [2]. Went to see him give a lengthy presentation and got the book and now need time to read it. His website is great and some of the information is cutting edge and worth of an entry here or there. So, there is my Holiday Book tip. PEACETalkAbout 04:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sad mouse,
Most impressed with the remodel (front page), very informative. I have a friend at an IVY school and had him explain some thing as one of the articles that I edit(currently banned) has a member that says HIV doesn't cause AIDS! How about that? Well, Doc (translation=Dr.) Ralph explained it all to us and we were most impressed (thought we had it all packed away mentally). Well I was able to repeat it three times and well it quickly went south. So, good to know you are on board with a deep knowledge base in several areas, to help us little folk along. lol So, the little mouse has a suit case! PEACETalkAbout 07:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stem Cell Research

"This user supports stem cell research. People are more important than religion." - This is clever SolitaryWolf 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting comment, given that it is only embryonic stem cell research (not adult) that many religions oppose, due to the belief that life begins at conception. Taking into account that, from conception, the developing feotus is of cellular make-up, respires, responds to stimuli, moves, exchanges matter with its surroundings, controls its evergy use and reproduces (in this case asexually to make new cells) then it fulfils all the criteria to be classified as living. Given that it also contains that entire genome of a human, it can be said to be of the homo sapiens species. So it is just as easy to oppose harvesting of embryonic stem cells as it is killing one person to save another. There are reasons other than religion that people would oppose embryonic stem cell research but even if it is their justification, it seems that the Christian view, at least, parallels with the scientific. Vision Insider 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting, but if we are to talk about Abrahamic religions (which I believe is what you mean by "many religions", since others, such as Hinduism, are not against embryonic stem cell research), then their holy texts actually imply that life begins at spermatogenesis and not at conception (the belief in the idea of the homunculus leads to such ideas as the man's sperm as the seed, and the contradiction against birth control that works prior to conception). I do agree that by every definition an embryo is both alive and human, but I never said that human cells are more important than religion, I said that people are more important than religion. A two day old embryo meets no plausible definition of "person" that doesn't apply to a severed arm or a culture of peripheral lymphocytes, it has no ability of cognition it has no way to live independent. So harvesting (killing is inaccurate, since the cells live on) a ball of eight cells is in no way like killing a person. Also, while a number of people are against embryonic stem cells while for adult stem cells, they tend to be people that don't actually know much detail about the stem cell research field. Basically, embryonic stem cells are not thought of as a therapeutic use, since MHC mismatch makes them unusable without severe immunosuppression. Rather, embryonic stem cells are important because they are the study tool that allows us to learn how to keep adult stem cells pluripotent and how to direct their lineage development. If we stop researching embryonic stem cells, we will not be able to continue learning how to manipulate adult stem cells. In short, the Christian view is internally inconsistent (if life begins at conception why are they against condoms?), and is scientifically impractical. Sad mouse 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
They are against condoms because sex is intended to be an act of love with the intention of bringing forth a child and I'm not sure why you say this shows inconsistency. As for the embryos not being self-aware, this is true. In order to maintain consistency, though, this must also apply to those who suffer serious brain-damage from car crashes, those in comatose and, possibly as there is much debate, infants. I do not mind your point of view, rather I think that any follower of religion would actually agree with you: people are more important than anything else. In the case of some religions, the idea of a person is broader than what you would suggest. In response to your last point, I do not study stem cells myself so I cannot tell what would happen. Vision Insider 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, something I forgot to add and want to: thankyou for actually taking time to put forward your point of view, I like hearing what others have to say, not just "You are wrong, I am right." which is the internet norm. Vision Insider 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. When I just get random abuse I delete it and ignore it, but I always welcome a reasoned discussion, it is only by talking to people with different ideas that we get to learn all the facts ourselves and thus make the most educated opinion we possibly can, so I appreciate you taking the time to tell me your position. It is difficult to debate what Christians do and don't believe, because there is such a wide variety of beliefs and some are cultural rather than religious, etc etc. However, if we were to look at the historical context of the prohibition of birth control, it did come down to the belief that the woman was an empty vessel, and that the sperm contained a complete person, so that "spilling your seed" (originally written against masturbation, the same passages are currently used against condom use) basically condemned a soul to shrivel up and die. The advent of the microscope and genetics disproved the homunculus theory, so the Christian belief latched on to conception, that really that is just an arbitrary a moment as many others and there is no scriptural basis for their belief. I say their position is inconsistent because the text is based upon an assumption which is no longer considered valid, so the "sex is an act of love with the intention of bringing forth a child" doctrine contains many inherent contradiction - why is the (standard) Christian opinion that sex before marriage is wrong, if it is done for love and for a child? Why are they not against married infertile couples having sex? Why would masturbation be wrong? If sex without love is wrong, why are (standard) Christians against divorce? And so on and so forth, by abandoning the text on which the sex rules are based as being incorrect (ie, soul enters at spermatogenesis) but by keeping the taboos, more and more rules need to be invented to justify the position. And like I said, pushing for adult stem cells only is a false position, because we require embryonic stem cell research to understand adult stem cells - it is both or neither, not one or the other. As for my own position (which is independence and cognition), I believe it is consistent - I believe we should give full rights of being a person to late term embryos (at the stages where they have rudimentary cognition and potential independence). You bring up the position of someone who is severely brain-damaged in an accident - my position (and I have let my family know, in case this happens to me) is that if someone is injured to the point where they have no cognition (ie, brain dead) and are unable to live independently (ie, require intensive life-support) then they should simply be allowed to die, because they are no longer the person they once were. To be consistent, I also believe that extremely premature babies should not always be kept alive, if they are born prior to rudimentary cognition and prior to independent life (say, 25 weeks, although it varies) then they should not be given intensive care (where they are likely to die painfully or survive with extremely poor long-term quality of life) but rather given morphine and allowed to die painlessly in what is essentially an external miscarriage. Sad mouse 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to the Christian points, it's true that not all Christians follow every part of the teachings put forward. Sex outside of marraige I do not really oppose, but I can see why it is easy to. Marraige is a binding commitment, assuring that children have parents to care for them (this is if conditions were ideal; so no divorce or sad, premature deaths of parents). Christian teachings say that sex is a sacred act. Masturbation is the same as protected sex: using sex without the intention of having a child. One thing that is true of Christian teaching, regardless of faith, is that children are not a risk of sex, they are the intentions. If condoms prevented the spread of sexually transmitted diseases but didn't prevent conception, then the Church would have no objection to them. Infertile couples... I've never thought about it and I honestly don't know. If I had to guess, it would be because many couples discover infertility as a result of continuous failed attempts to have children, so in the Church's eyes, the couple are acting with the best intentions, only circumstance has robbed them.
The next part is just difference of opinion. I don't determine the value of life according to its condition, so I would not be able to let someone die if I could avoid it. That said, medicine is to the point where a body can be artificially prolonged well beyond the person's life. While they may be braindead, a machine can breath for them despite them having no independent ability to live. This is not what I mean. I think that someone suffering crippling motor nueron disease or a quadraplegic, both conditions dependent on machines to survive, are just as much a person as a 100m Olympic sprinter or that a premature baby born into a life of disability is just as much a human as the healthy child in the bed next to it. Also, I acknowledge that, at some stage in my life, I was a single cell, so I think that the single cell moments after conception is every bit the person I am.
And, sticking with what I said earlier, I don't study stem cells, so I don't know what use embryonic stem cells are in the field. Vision Insider 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Komodo dragon

i appreciate the feedback on the article! i wondered myself about the venom reference; it was there before i was, and tho i knew of the more general findings on the Toxicofera, i couldn't recall any new research about how it intersected withg dragons (and i do try to keep up). i haven't been back to the article itself yet, but i will look to that; and thank you for the heads up!

cheers! Metanoid 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Auca

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Operation Auca; I've responded there. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellow biologist

Hello Sad Mouse. It's nice to meet a Wikipedian with a philosophy so similar to mine. It seems we share the same opinion regarding the Chinese anti-satellite test page. And I totally agree with your view point of Wikipedia's weakness, something I don't see often from other wikipedians. By the way, I'm also a biologist, scheduled to receive my PhD this May. In any case, hope to work with you again soon. Pseudotriton 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm an ecologist, specializing in community and population ecology. The dissertation writing is intense at the moment. I just hope I don't run out of time. Pseudotriton 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Virginia Tech shooting issue

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply sooner. I agree that Rooot's editing style has been rather unilateral and that he has been removing content from the article in a rather unconstructive way. He hasn't edited again yet since you left that message on his talk page so we can see if he heeds your advice. I have now watchlisted the page in question so I will monitor Rooot's future edits and warn him if he begins edit warring again. At the moment he probably hasn't violated our three reversion policy as such, although he has come quite close. Unfortunately, when editing an article which is as high profile as Virginia Tech massacre is at the moment, there are always going to be a few editors who act against the consensus. The best bet at the moment is to continue discussion on the talk page and warn him about his future conduct like you have done. Hopefully this might do the trick. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the only way that we could theoretically check for sure to see whether that IP is Rooot would be by requesting a checkuser. However, these are generally reserved for serious cases as a last resort and so this wouldn't really be appropriate in this case. As you say, the best thing we can do is assume good faith in that it may be a totally different user who happens to be acting a bit similarly. Unfortunately, with as many people trying to edit this page as there are currently, there are going to be a few who aren't too familiar with the ways of Wikipedia and whose edits aren't exactly constructive. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sad mouse. Just an FYI, I gave Rooot a warning for the statement he made below. I've been pretty involved in the discussions around Virginia Tech massacre, so I'm also keeping an eye on this. Natalie 17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's very true, but I feel like since this is a new user, we need to give him some polite but firm direction. In his 5 or 6 days here he has acted in a way that is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia, and I would prefer that he learn a better way of dealing with people and remain an editor than continue on the path he is on and get blocked. Your diplomacy and zen is admirable. Natalie 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sad Mouse. I wrote that section on the international media response re: gun control and was away from my computer all weekend. Just wanted to say thanks for your defense of the section, I think you've done a great job articulating its importance. Never imagined it would be controversial at all so it was shocking to see how much discussion popped up around it! Interesting to see the notes above about Rooot.
Will and Natalie, thanks to you too for your work here and all you do. This community is amazing! Glad to be a part of it. I've seen Natalie's many many edits on this article and appreciate all the time/effort you're contributing to make it great. Pladuk 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inaccurate media reports.

Hey Sad Mouse. Remember the point I made about using the videos themselves as a source? Well, There is an individual who is in an editing war with me to remove the point completely, consistantly calling it origional research. I request your assistance in helping me to keep him from removing the section instead of editing it while we wait for more opinions to be raised on the issue. Talk:Inaccurate_media_reports_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre#More_inaccurate_reports_to_speculate.Youngidealist 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Deleted request to review Brats

I'm not an admin, so I have no power to delete articles on the site, so responsibility for the original deletion of the FAR request does not lie with me beyond my pointing out the nom as having been made in bad faith. All I'm asking is that the requests filed on the FAR page be observed in all particulars so that NPOV can be observed during the delisting process. As for your edits in particular: You are correct, your contribution to the incorrectly filed FAR was not made in bad faith. Assuming that the proper procedure is followed in all respects we should have a legitiamtely filed FAR for Military Brat in a few days time, and you can add your comments about the article to that FAR. I assume that the article will not clear FAR and will likely end up on FARC, where it will undoubtedly be demoted. Cheer up, in the long run your camp is going to win, its only a matter of time. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, I will refrain from adressing the nomination as filed in "bad faith"; we are, after all, to assume that all edits were made in "good faith", therefore this would be "fully justified but incorrectly filed". I apologize for the "your camp" comment as well, it would appear that I was out of line on that point. In any event I will refrain from interfering with any future FAR filed for the article, if one has not already been refiled. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about the POV on VT massacre

I am currently working on the international response section. I try to keep the article more neutral by rewriting the entire section. I know people might think that I am trying to keep the section. Regardless of that, I consider the act of deleting the section irresponsible and POV since they try to keep different views from being on the article. Chris 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP#Categories

I think you need to read WP:BLP#Categories very carefully. A public self-identification from Craig that he is gay is required before a gay category can be applied to his article. - Crockspot 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health table in indigenious Australians page

Thanks for your kind comments, Sad Mouse! :) Hopefully I can get some more work in on that article soon! Hax0rw4ng 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology / please avoid personal attacks

I have left my final comment on the Shakespeare issue on that article's talk page. I apologize for not being clear about the encyclopedia articles; I should have said they used similar language to ours, which they do, instead of saying that stated the same thing. I also apologize for anything I said which you took as a personal attack. That wasn't my intention. I merely disagree with you and your points. Nothing more. Please, though, do remember to assume good faith of others. It really hurt that you think I was "intentionally misunderstanding" your points and making "false" statements. As for your concerns about me protecting the article, I was merely trying to keep the vandalism to a minimum so improvements people made wouldn't be lost. When a massive amount of vandalism hits an article, the good edits can be reverted by mistake along with the bad. Anyway, as I said I'm done with this discussion. If you can convince the other editors to make they change, I won't stand in your way. In fact, I'll support the new consensus like I would any other consensus.--Alabamaboy 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope you will comment since you already voiced your opinion at ANI.--Alabamaboy 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zogby poll

You were correct. the link to http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=710 brought up the Zogby poll of Ohio voters, where the question is framed as "(B) Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." IMO, it was quite reasonable to remove it entirely. ... Kenosis 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Skinny Pig

I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landhermie (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central tolerance

Hi, the Central tolerance article is seeming a bit redundant compared to the Immune tolerance article. It does have the scope to be its own article though, as was agreed during the proposed merger a while back. I wondered if you knew enough about central tolerance to help out? I have no expertise in the area other than the outline I've already added. Snellios (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I just wondered on the off chance you were looking for articles to take on. You already did a great job. Snellios (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)